The Obama Birth-Certificate Controversy: An Update

An excellent article from World Net Daily was passed along to me last night. It is an all-inclusive compilation of the multiple reasons why such skepticism has been incited in regards to the United States' President-Elect Barack Obama. The article can be found here. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80710)

The article, written by Faith2Action President Janet Porter, highlights the 5 major concerns in regards to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be elected President of the United States. Here they are:

1. Barack's Grandmother Claims he was Born in Kenya
Obama's grandmother stated, "I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961." - Watch the video here. (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1906870/barack_obama_born_in_kenya_ii/)
2. He Does Not Appear to Possess a Birth Certificate
(From the article) "Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, 'It's clearly been altered,' which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth."
3. An Indonesian Citizen?
(From the article) "Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where [he] was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam... If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had"
4. A Visit to Pakistan
(From the article) "U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit - likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport."
5. Returning to the States
(From the article) "According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become 'naturalized,' which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien - not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro."

The article also addresses the issue of Barack's mother only being 18 at the time of his birth, which would disqualify him as a "natural-born citizen" (since in order to qualify his mother would have needed to have resided in the U.S. for ten years, five of which being after the age of 18).

In addition to the above, I was surprised earlier when I came across an article on FighttheSmears.com, a site launched by the Obama campaign, featuring a graphic which it labels, "Barack Obama's Official Birth Certificate" which I discovered, to my surprise, was not in fact a birth certificate at all! The title of the document itself reads: "CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH" - hardly the same thing. You can view this article here. (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate?source=source=sem-pm-fts-bc-search-us)

Draw your own conclusions.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Election '08: 'It Ain't Over 'til it's Over'

For those of you who thought that one of the most heated elections in the history of the United States had finally come to a close on November 4^th, you may be interested to hear about this startling new development.

I've gone to a good deal of trouble to verify the authenticity of this story (you might be suprised by the amount of trouble I had in attempting to navigate through the U.S. Supreme Court's website), as most bloggers have simply referenced each-other as sources in this matter. Apparently on October 30^th, 2008, Philip J. Berg, lawyer and supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, filed a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the review of a lower court's dismissal of Berg's lawsuit "against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants" (source). Why? Philip Berg, along with others, feels that the state of Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship may be in question (the significance of which being that if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, then he is not eligible to run for president of the United States). The buzz seems to be that he may have been born in Kenya. While many have questioned the authenticity of the entire story, the United States Supreme Court authenticates it here. Here's what the docket says:

No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.

Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oct 30 2008 - Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)

Oct 31 2008 - Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Nov 3 2008 - Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.

Nov 3 2008 - Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.

Note that it states that the response to the Writ of Certiorari is due December 1^st, 2008. This means that President-Elect Barack Obama will need to provide a legitimate birth-certificate to the Court by that date. The docket also states that Berg's request for an injunction to delay the November 4^th elections was denied by Justice Souter. What can we expect in the coming weeks? It's hard to say, but one thing's for sure: the Supreme Court wouldn't take too well to resistance on the part of the President-Elect. If he doesn't produce the certificate by December 1^st, Obama's name may not appear on the ballot on December 13^th (the day the Electoral College votes).

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

My Perspective: Election '08

This year's election has been one of the most heated America has ever seen, and with the media discussing the election 24/7, election ads running on television and being sent both in the mail and through e-mail, as well as some pastors even being so bold as to proclaim from the pulpit the candidate they support, many Christians are struggling over who they should vote for tomorrow when the polls open. The question being asked across the board seems to be: What is the Christian way to vote? And many authors and televangelists are quick to offer their responses. For this reason, I would like to make just a short note concerning this year's elections and attempt to offer a reality check as to what a Christian's priorities ought to be concerning politics.

The bottom line is, it isn't our job as Christians to change the world through politics. Just look at the government Israel was under in the New Testament - believe it or not, Rome was far worse than anything we're facing today. Yet Jesus still never once told his disciples to overthrow the government and establish a new, more biblical one. That being said, it's still good to do what we can to keep our country from declining morally even more than it already has. But rather than throw my support behind a particular candidate (as I'm not particularly impressed with any of them, Democrat, Republican, or Independent), I'm proposing a different focus. I propose that we as Christians pray not for change in Washington, but for salvation in Washington. Pray that whoever wins the elections on November 4th will come to know Christ, and that He will change him into a man after His own heart - that would be a far better influence than simply voting for whoever you deem to be the "lesser of evils" out of the current pool of candidates.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Pray for Salvation in Washington

Mitt Romney: America's Next President?

In a conversation I had recently with a member of the LDS (Latter-Day Saints - a.k.a. "mormon") church, the girl I was speaking with suddenly became very serious. She looked me straight in the eyes and said with surprising confidence "I know who the next president will be." While she didn't disclose the name of the candidate she was referring to, the context of the conversation we were having, dominantly religious, made the implication clear.

Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and now a semi-dominant candidate for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, has earned much of his popularity, as well as criticism, from his religious stance. As a member of the LDS church, he represents conservative values and, in the eyes of fellow church members, LDS representation in the nation's capital. Is the church's brazen confidence in Romney warranted? In polls of G.O.P. voters, Romney would appear to be steadily maintaining his standing between 3rd and 5th place in the race for the Republican nomination. While considering this things may be looking a little bleak for Romney, the public opinion may shift. He is almost guaranteed the support of the LDS church, a relatively impressive chunk of the U.S. population (as of 2002, mormons made up approx. 2% of the U.S. population). With at least 2 percent of the vote practically handed to him, Romney is bound to continue to build support and may eventually become a more formiddable threat to the prominent G.O.P. candidates such as Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. Will Mitt Romney be the nation's next president? It is not completely out of the question, especially with the enormous financial backing available to him (he raised $23 million in the first quarter, more than any other G.O.P. candidate). Perhaps the better question is "should Mitt Romney be the nation's next president?"

While Romney's mantra throughout his campaign thus far has been that voters should not consider his religion when voting, he also continually seeks, and receives, strong support from his church. The fact of the matter is, religion should NOT be a part of the voters' decisions. In my humble opinion, Romney is an expert at speaking out of both sides of his mouth. I fear that if Romney is elected, it will be because of his religious stance... a point which has been largely undisputed by LDS church members, stating they will vote for Romney because of his membership in the church. If you as a voter wish that Romney be elected, then by all means vote for him. But NOT because of his religious stance. I would implore you to choose which candidate you support based upon political stances, not religious biases (whether for OR against religion). Religion is of course a good indicator of moral perspective, but should only be considered as one of many factors.

Does this mean politicians with religious affiliations shouldn't be president? Of course not! As a Christian myself, I would gladly vote for a Christian candidate, but not simply because he or she is a Christian. I would also encourage members of the LDS church to vote for Romney if they agree with him politically, but NEVER because he is a Latter-Day Saint. Likewise, I am confident that many Democratic voters will vote in favor of Sen. Hilary Clinton, but I also know that a large majority will not do so because they completely agree with her politics, but instead many feminists will vote for Clinton because she is a woman and they are "ready for change". This is a foolish reason to vote for any candidate and these voters will have no one to blame but themselves if they later discover that Clinton varies drastically from their views on key issues.